"Watchdog group praises games industry, criticizes parents"

[Prosthetic]

I went to go check my e-mail when I noticed the ever so familiar game criticizing article title. Nothing new really, but I decided to check it out and my god did this article piss the crap out of me.

Especially this part "As recently as 2005, the NIMF gave the Entertainment Software Ratings Board a resounding "F""

What the 🤬. Why the hell do these industries give grades? They already the ESRB but apparently they need to go through games with a fine tooth comb. People play games for entertainment and experience unrealistic fantasy's that are impossible to happen.

Ok, so then I looked at some "Great Games" and some "Stay way from these games or you will turn into Charles Manson"

Good Games:
http://www.mediafamily.org/research/report_vgrc_2008_rec_games.shtml

OMFG GTFO Games:
http://www.mediafamily.org/research/report_vgrc_2008_avoid_games.shtml

Ok, so then I read the descriptions of these horrific games that are slowly turning me into a cereal killer and I think... Damn, there just making me want to play them more! Like take the Far Cry 2 description.

"Far Cry 2 is set in an unnamed African country being torn apart by two warring groups. The gamer’s mission is to kill The Jackal, an arms dealer who is supplying to both sides of the conflict. Blowing peoples heads off is a regular occurrence in this game. The game is rated M for blood, drug references, intense violence, sexual themes and strong language. Available on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360."

That sounds like true entertainment! Blood? Sweet! Heads blowing up? Dude! Count me in!

Ok, typical teen boy reaction probably. Hell my 60 year old dad would say the same thing!

The thing that bugs me, is that living in the real world, you can see things a million trillion times more whack then you can in average shoot em' up game. So in theory there just a watered down version of real life?

But then you look at "High School Musical 3: SENIOR DANCE ADDITION!! OMFG!!! There is nothing more fun then a simulation of the most dull time in your life. But there are 29 songs that you are limited to dance to! Wow! Why can't we just use a stereo? Cheaper since you probably already have one.

Granted I believe that games don't have to be violent to be fun. But I think that violent games make for some killer fun. I'll put it this way, when I was 9 I played Half-Life with my dad. Almost 9 years later I still play games that involve people getting eff'd up. All my friends have, and not one of them are violent. I think that crappy parents and violent games/movies etc... are more of the cause of twisted teenage murders. Parents need to stop blaming music/movies/video games and start blaming there poor parenting.

I'm not saying all parents are crap, in fact those of you that are on this forum are probably the best parents in the world because most of you most still have a little bid of kid fun in you.

Edit: BTW I know I most likely violated every grammar rule in existence, but it was a rant so bare with me.

 

[Azuremen]

What does your title have to do with your rant?

 

[Tornado]

I don't see the problem. Yeah, many of the "kid-friendly" games that they listed were crap (which wasn't the point), but I honestly don't see any of the games listed in their other list as being particularly appropriate for kids. Even though many of their games on the second list are uninformed and exaggerated, you have to remember that they are essentially saying "Parent's, you may not want to get Violent First Person Kill-A-Thon 4 on the 360 for little Timmy." They aren't even condemning the games in the second list, just suggesting that it may not be appropriate for your children. I see no problem with that.


As an aside, has anyone yet understood the point of the E 10+ rating? I think it was just established so the ESRB doesn't have to think too hard.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Buy me Bonestorm or go to hell!

 

[88c-v Racer]

i personally think some of the ESRB ratings are complete 🤬, you'd have two simliar games with similar themes but two different ratings. an example, the NFS games, when Most Wanted came out it was T. the other NFS games were E. it went from E to T because they added cop chases. some people would say, "well that's violent enough to make it T." it's still the same illegal street racing for money. if cop chases make a game T than Carbon should be T also. the ratings seem completely random when there are two games that are borderline between ratings. it seems to come down to a few randomly chosen aspects of the game.

 

[nk4e]

I always look at the label at some games before I give it back to the parent when I work. I ask them, do they know what they are buying their kid or the computer will prompted me to ask the guest for I.D. But if parents don't look at the label then blames the company to buy their kid the games. Then its their fault. I wonder why they didn't put Dance Dance Revolution on the top rated list.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Considering they were saying which games you should avoid buying for your kids, I'd say that's pretty accurate. It's the parents that do buy those games for their kids that cause all the crap like trying to ban the GTA games.

 

[Kylehnat]

...slowly turning me into a cereal killer...

What did Tony the Tiger ever do to you?

Buy me Bonestorm or go to hell!

THRILLHO!

 

[Moglet]

What does your title have to do with your rant?

I would also like to know this.

 

[Touring Mars]

From what I can tell, he should have added this link...

http://www.mediafamily.org/research/report_vgrc_2008_summary.shtml

I'm a bit perplexed by the "rant" as well... not only does it not address the issue at hand, it's also a bit out of date...

So what if the NIMF gave the ESRB an "F" in 2005, when they give them an "A" now?

The issue is whether or not parents are paying attention to the ratings, since surely it is the parent's responsibility to ensure that their kids are not accessing stuff that they think is unacceptable.

How games influence the behaviour of kids is a moot point. Arguably, the point of the exercise is to make parents more aware of what ratings mean and what they should be looking out for.

 

[FoolKiller]

Actually, I think this year's report has shown both an improvement in the gaming retail industry to enforce its own policy, and an improvement that NIMF no longer thinks the gaming industry is out to traumatize kids. They actually added the weight of responsibility on to the parents, as they should.

Of course, this year is also the first year that NIMF has accepted donations from the gaming industry and worked with them, using those funds, to create awareness campaigns aimed at parents.

I think it is a clear sign that the two groups have quit yelling at each other and are working together to help parents make an informed decision.

In the past NIMF was being very unfair and their results were very different from those of the Federal Trade Commission's studies. This year they are in line with those studies.


I think it should also be important to note that the video game retailers are preventing children from buying games that are not age appropriate 80% of the time, which is much higher than the music and movie industries.

 

[EDK]

What did Tony the Tiger ever do to you?

LOL, what I was thinking too. Count Chocula and Frankenberry are on the loose.

I was also thinking that Dr. Atkins was a cereal killer.

On the subject at hand - It's all very political. Personally, I don't pay much attention to ratings of any sort, but then again, I don't have kids.

I still think the ratings system is a cop out, for people who don't want to do their homework. Parents should have a good sense of what their kids are doing and what they can handle. To leave it up to a watchdog group that is being funded by the industry they review is the easy way out.

I'm supportive of all media being created with censor free content. I don't like the fact that these groups can potentially impact the media that's delivered to us, whether it's music, books, movies, games, television, whatever. You won't find me shopping at the Christian book store. But you won't find me outraged over their products and trying to prevent others from using them.

It's unfortunate that these groups, or even some retailers (Such as Wal-Mart) can ultimately influence the creative process and alter the product that we purchase. My support will go to those who stand behind their beliefs and creative vision, even if it means they will face obstacles from advocacy groups or mis-guided retailers. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

I still think the ratings system is a cop out, for people who don't want to do their homework. Parents should have a good sense of what their kids are doing and what they can handle. To leave it up to a watchdog group that is being funded by the industry they review is the easy way out.

Um, what watchdog group is rating games? Game ratings are done by the ESRB, which is not only funded by the gaming industry, but run by the gaming industry. It is not some watchdog group that is trying to censor games. They are taking the time to have a panel of people check out the games in a thorough way that a parent cannot without buying the game.

And if you still don't like that, just remember that the ESRB is the response to politicians telling them to regulate themselves or be regulated. The ESRB is preventing censorship like has been reported in Europe, Asia, and Australia.

I'm supportive of all media being created with censor free content. I don't like the fact that these groups can potentially impact the media that's delivered to us, whether it's music, books, movies, games, television, whatever.

I assume you are referring to NIMF, not ESRB (ESRB does not censor). NIMF is not censoring anything. They are putting out a report that tells how often children are getting their hands on content that is not age-appropriate. They split it up to say where the different efforts are working. The gaming industry received all A's and one B+, meaning they approve of how it is working right now. Their last point was parental involvement, which received an incomplete, basically saying that they now are putting the blame on parents.

 

[TB]

Any parent that doesn't take the 3.4 seconds to turn a game over to see the rating has no one to blame but themselves. Even TV shows that are rated PG are, in some cases, too graphic for my kids (people getting blasted with Staff Weapons on Stargate is the first thing that comes to mind).

Games are the same way. Just because "technically" a game is deemed alright for a certain age group doesn't mean that your child is ready to see it and vice-versa. I've played both Lego Star Wars and Lego Indy (both of which are rated 10+) with my 4 and 2 year olds. Does that make me a bad parent? I guess to some people it might. Those are the people that blame games for making kids cereal () killers. God forbid it's bad parenting or misdiagnosed medical conditions.

Maybe we have a different perspective on this since we are gamers, but even if I wasn't, I'd still be checking out games my kids want.

 

[EDK]

Um, what watchdog group is rating games? Game ratings are done by the ESRB, which is not only funded by the gaming industry, but run by the gaming industry. It is not some watchdog group that is trying to censor games. They are taking the time to have a panel of people check out the games in a thorough way that a parent cannot without buying the game.

And if you still don't like that, just remember that the ESRB is the response to politicians telling them to regulate themselves or be regulated. The ESRB is preventing censorship like has been reported in Europe, Asia, and Australia.


I assume you are referring to NIMF, not ESRB (ESRB does not censor). NIMF is not censoring anything. They are putting out a report that tells how often children are getting their hands on content that is not age-appropriate. They split it up to say where the different efforts are working. The gaming industry received all A's and one B+, meaning they approve of how it is working right now. Their last point was parental involvement, which received an incomplete, basically saying that they now are putting the blame on parents.

My comments relate to the general regulation of any form of media. The ratings systems ultimately dictate the content. The watchdog groups DO control the action of the regulatory boards.

The gaming industry has done what they needed to, but it's the political pressure (First sentence in my original post) that ultimately drives all of this. Yes, it was congress that threatened action, but that was only because their constituents demanded it.

I'm not judging the ESRB, but rather the process that drives us to this point.

 

[FoolKiller]

My comments relate to the general regulation of any form of media. The ratings systems ultimately dictate the content. The watchdog groups DO control the action of the regulatory boards.

The gaming industry has done what they needed to, but it's the political pressure (First sentence in my original post) that ultimately drives all of this. Yes, it was congress that threatened action, but that was only because their constituents demanded it.

I'm not judging the ESRB, but rather the process that drives us to this point.

You were using the word censor and I do not see censoring happening, based on the ability for games like Super Columbine Massacre, torture simulators, and 9/11 simulators to get out on the Internet.

Now, console manufacturers refuse to allow a game above an M rating to be sold on their system, which is their choice, even though I disagree with it. But the way of the Internet today truly means that there is no censorship in gaming in the US.



And as the loudest anti-gaming voice, Jack Thompson, has been taken out of his official capacity we won't be hearing some of the most insane stuff any more.

 

[EDK]

You were using the word censor and I do not see censoring happening, based on the ability for games like Super Columbine Massacre, torture simulators, and 9/11 simulators to get out on the Internet.

Now, console manufacturers refuse to allow a game above an M rating to be sold on their system, which is their choice, even though I disagree with it. But the way of the Internet today truly means that there is no censorship in gaming in the US.



And as the loudest anti-gaming voice, Jack Thompson, has been taken out of his official capacity we won't be hearing some of the most insane stuff any more.

There are examples in any form of media that relate to what you are saying. But mainstream media - games, movies, books, television, are effectively censored. The content is controlled by regulations and regulatory boards.

Nobody is out there reviewing original material and changing the content without the authorization or knowledge of the original creator. But the impact of regulations is nearly the same.

That said, my statement was not intended to spark debate, only stating my opinion.

 

[Sharky.]

i personally think some of the ESRB ratings are complete 🤬

👍

The ratings are a bit different in this part of the world, but they're still totally ridiculous. Here, Burnout 3:Takedown is rated M15+ (ESRB: T) because of, wait for it...


... "medium level animated violence". WTF. It's Burnout for christ's sake, not Tekken.


TBH I'm sick of video games getting blamed for youths doing drugs/bashing people over the head/stealing cars/shooting people|aliens|zombies|bears etc.

Take the lists the OP linked to. "Great Games For Kids": All Star Cheer Squad. Animal Crossing: City Folk. HSM3. Nancy Drew. OK, so here "kid" is obviously taken to be, what, 12-14 years old (and female, lol)?

With that in mind you come to the zOMG AVOID!!! list. Fallout 3. Far Cry 2. GOW2. Resistance 2. Saints Row 2. Since when have these games been targeted at 12 year olds?

Unfortunately for the game industry (and consequently gamers) this seems to be the stance taken by pretty much every watchdog group out there. "Oh look, you can chop someone's head off with a chainsaw in this R18 game. We'd better ban it, because it's not good for kids."

(for the record: NFS:U is rated G. So "realistic" illegal street racing gets a G (equivalent to ESRB E) rating, yet totally "unrealistic" arcade racing gets a M15 rating? It's a farce.)



Now some local examples of this irrational madness:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0804/S00395.htm
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/news...s-of-aggression---what-the-research-says.html

Stuff like this makes me wonder how intelligent the human race actually is.

 

[Casio]

It would be better for Video Games to be sold without ratings at all. It would encourage parents who buy games for their children to actually research the game before purchasing it, rather than taking the lazy way out and focusing on a single letter on the game-cover. And it's not going to effect the people who buy games for themselves because, they don't care about ratings anyway.

 

[nk4e]

It would be better for Video Games to be sold without ratings at all. It would encourage parents who buy games for their children to actually research the game before purchasing it, rather than taking the lazy way out and focusing on a single letter on the game-cover. And it's not going to effect the people who buy games for themselves because, they don't care about ratings anyway.

Well, with that single letter comes the definitions on the side of it. Like it would say " sexual references" and such and such. I always encourage people do their research before buying any types of electronics, it saves time and money.

 

[Casio]

I find that generally the definitions on the side are ambiguous at best. What is 'Medium Level - Violence' exactly? Like Sharky said previously, Burnout has 'Medium Level - Violence'. The same with 'Course Language', my mum would think a game that says the word s***, would have Medium Level Language. Whereas, someone else might not think of it at all. While the definitions can be helpful when taking a look at the game at first, it doesn't hold anything to actually doing some research about the game from other sources.

Watching 4 minute Game-Play video or video review on YouTube would probably be sufficient enough for parents to be able to make a reasonably educated decision on whether a game is suitable for their child.

 

[Dragonistic]

Put simply, I grew up playing games rated above my own age, I turned out just fine and don't find myself going out with my AK trying to get a 5 kill streak to call in the air strike on my neighbours whilst shouting 0MG PWN3D LOLZ! My parents checked the age, and did the research if it was an 18 rated (up until I was about 13), otherwise it was pretty much ok. There are limits to what should be allowed for young childrens, but if subjected to media in a controlled manor, the most violent of games don't seem as big a shock and lets be honest if you're not allowed something and your a young teen boy, you want!

 

[Sage]

It would be better for Video Games to be sold without ratings at all. It would encourage parents who buy games for their children to actually research the game before purchasing it, rather than taking the lazy way out and focusing on a single letter on the game-cover. And it's not going to effect the people who buy games for themselves because, they don't care about ratings anyway.

Bingo, we have a winner!

BTW, this is not quite the “let’s regulate ourselves” sort of thing that many people think – congress, including Joe—Think-of-the-Children!—Lieberman, forced the video game industry to create a rating system.

 

[homeforsummer]

It would be better for Video Games to be sold without ratings at all. It would encourage parents who buy games for their children to actually research the game before purchasing it, rather than taking the lazy way out and focusing on a single letter on the game-cover. And it's not going to effect the people who buy games for themselves because, they don't care about ratings anyway.

I also agree with this, it's a very good point. That said, there will be some parents too lazy to actually do their parenting and let kids buy unsuitable games anyway just as they do now. It'd be a good way of moderating those parents who do try and raise their kids properly though.

I'm trying to remember the first age-rated game that myself and my brother, who's two years younger, played. I think it might have been Grand Theft Auto 3, which at the time our parents bought for us, after making an educated decision that we were intelligent enough not to take it seriously. I would have been 16 when it was released in 2001. We were both already into games at that point, and because of that my parents knew a fair bit about the different games on the market and were happy to buy GTA for us. Apart from anything, they knew that the game was so much more than an excuse to plow through pedestrians, which is a concept the people who complain about games like GTA don't seem to understand.

 

[FoolKiller]

Bingo, we have a winner!

BTW, this is not quite the “let’s regulate ourselves” sort of thing that many people think – congress, including Joe—Think-of-the-Children!—Lieberman, forced the video game industry to create a rating system.

While that is true, Congress does not have an affect on these ratings.

I do not find the ratings themselves to be a bad thing, and it does help parents by not making them need to play a game to know if there is a possibility of alien lesbian sex 32 hours in.

I do not, however, like how every ratings system we have in the US came about....threat of censorship.

 

[Sureboss]

I also agree with this, it's a very good point. That said, there will be some parents too lazy to actually do their parenting and let kids buy unsuitable games anyway just as they do now. It'd be a good way of moderating those parents who do try and raise their kids properly though.

I'm trying to remember the first age-rated game that myself and my brother, who's two years younger, played. I think it might have been Grand Theft Auto 3, which at the time our parents bought for us, after making an educated decision that we were intelligent enough not to take it seriously. I would have been 16 when it was released in 2001. We were both already into games at that point, and because of that my parents knew a fair bit about the different games on the market and were happy to buy GTA for us. Apart from anything, they knew that the game was so much more than an excuse to plow through pedestrians, which is a concept the people who complain about games like GTA don't seem to understand.

Speaking of that, I played the original GTA when I was only 10. Never affected me, anyone with a modicum of common sense realises that computer games are just that, computer games. Speaking of the original GTA, I want the Hare Krishna's back.

The games industry is one of the biggest entertainment sectors, if not the biggest. I know it's bigger than Film and I think it's now bigger than Music.